Got a kick outta seeing the Bruce Campbell cameo in Dr. Strange Multiverse of Madness. Guessing it was lost on those not familiar with the Evil Dead series.
G’day nostr frens. 🌞 ☕️
#coffeechain #dogstr 
Really like the wood ceilings and floors in the first and last.
G’night 🌙
Next nostr hangout. So much has happened since the last one. 🔥
Thank you Roya. Means a lot! 🫂
Yes! Couldn’t agree more on Animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False
In addition to the main result, Ioannidis lists six corollaries for factors that can influence the reliability of published research.
Research findings in a scientific field are less likely to be true,
the smaller the studies conducted.
the smaller the effect sizes.
the greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships.
the greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes.
the greater the financial and other interests and prejudices.
the hotter the scientific field (with more scientific teams involved).
Now with that in mind, think about climate science. I'm not denying anthropogenic global warming, I'm just saying that most reserach over the last 10-20 years, in a field where you cannot have case controlled studies, probably comes to false conclusions.
Garbage in and garbage out.
Reminded me of the DEFCON 26 track: “Svea, Suggy, Till - Inside the Fake Science Factory” that uncovered the predatory publishing process back in 2018.
Excellent investigative journalism although they somehow threw in some climate change opinion toward the end of their formal presentation (50 minutes). Literally took a stance (as an aside) without giving a balanced examination. Virtue signaling and sort of guilty of doing what they’re trying to protect against. Funny I never noticed it the first time I saw the track.
I’d like to use their methods to pull climate change research from all sides and see how many publish through less-reputable processes vs. established, and what universities/grants/businesses/lobbyists are associated with each. That’s a lot of data to parse.
I’m thinking they’re missing the angle from which the peer reviewers, grants, university funding etc… affect the selection process from the top as well. Just curious if politically unpopular evidence is unable to get through peer review. 🤔
Verifying my Nostr Nests identity: GUrPY90SyBr3htxeFyMVFSDNrGn-5F_85Fg8nq0AiTs
To protect the children of course.
I’d imagine some at BlueSky will ask that “toxic” nostr content be blocked.
Lol. We’ve been conditioned
Verifying my Nostr Nests identity: cOKkzErNu-9U_WaLMAU8Mz8rE81OyvH3bKNTilNWDwU
Partial to Revolver